Sh. Tarun Mohindroo, Contractor, Mandi v. Addl. CIT,, Mandi

ITA 1007/CHANDI/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 100721514 RSA 2010
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1007/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Tarun Mohindroo, Contractor, Mandi
Respondent Addl. CIT,, Mandi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 07-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 12-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1007/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI TARUN MOHINDROO V ADDL. CIT CONTRACTOR 189/1 CIRCLE MANDI JAWAHAR NAGAR (H.P.) MANDI. PAN: ABOPM-0755F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.P.THAKUR RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 30.04.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271D OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SO THE PENALTY OF RS.55000/- MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY IGNORING THE FINDING OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT CALCULATION OF PENALTY WAS WRONGLY DONE BY LD. AO. 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI TARUN MO HINDROO GOVT. CONTRACTOR R/O HOUSE NO. 189/1 JAWAHAR NAGAR MAN DI DISTT.MANDI (H.P) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT THERE WAS A LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE STANDING IN THE NAME OF M/S BEHL MOTORS. A PERUSAL OF THIS ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT IT WAS AN ACCOUNT PERTAINING TO VEHIC LE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. M/S BEHL MOTORS IS AUTHOR IZED DEALER OF EICHER VEHICLE. THE RELEVANT BILLS/VOUCHERS OF SAI D EXPENSES WERE VERIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND WERE FOUND IN ORDER. HOWEVER THERE WERE SOME CASH ENTR IES OF CREDIT AND DEBIT IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WHICH WERE IN ROUND F IGURES AND WERE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER ENTRIES OF REGULAR BUSINESS TR ANSACTIONS. THE ADDL.CIT LEVIED PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2008 . THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDL.CIT PAS SED U/S 271E READ WITH SECTION 269D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DATED 29.09.2008 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPR ECIATION OF THE SAME: THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROP ERLY ANALYZED AND FOUND TO BE INCORRECT AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THESE ENTRIES PERTAIN ED TO THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO REPAIR OF VEHICLE UNDER WA RRANTY. THE EXPLANATION FURTHERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VAGUE AND MISLEADING. IT IS ALSO INCORRECT TO STATE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE O F LOAN. THE VERY NATURE OF CASH ENTRIES OF RECEIPT AND REPA YMENT THEREOF IS AN EVIDENCE IN ITSELF FOR WHICH NO OTHER WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED. IN THIS C ASE IT IS NOTICED THAT LOAN ACCOUNT WAS CAMOUFLAGED WITH NORM AL ACCOUNTS HAVING REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER PARTY. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A 3 TECHNICAL MISTAKE AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS DO NOT ATTRACT SINCE THERE WAS NOT BOGUS TRANSACTIONS IS THEREFORE NOT TENABLE. THE VERY INTENTION OF THE L EGISLATION IS TO PROHIBIT ANY SUCH TRANSACTION THEREFORE IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE TRANSACTION WAS BOGUS OR OTH ERWISE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PENALTY PROCEED INGS WERE NOT INITIATED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS HAS NO RELEVANCE SINCE THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS INDEPENDENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 FOR VIOLATING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. HENCE A PENALTY OF RS.55 000/- WHICH IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT REP AID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S BEHL MOTORS IS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE VIOLATION. 4. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF IMPUGNED PENALT Y BY THE ADDL.CIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS CONTENTIONS. FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :V THE RIVAL PLEAS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE UNDERS IGNED. THE CASES CITED AS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WITH TH E PRESENT CASE. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271D FOR VI OLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT WHICH PROH IBITS ANY PERSON FROM REPAYMENT OF LOAN/DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THA N BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT EXCEEDING RS.20 000/-. THE APPELLANTS PLEA THAT THESE ENTRIES RELATE TO REPAI R OF VEHICLES UNDER WARRANTY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE AB SENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAME. THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D IS HELD AS JUSTIFIED FOR VIOLAT ION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS RELEVANT DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER 4 AUTHORITIES. IT IS APT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT : IF A PERSON TAKES OR ACCEPTS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS H E SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT SO TAKEN OR ACCEPTED. 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE THA T THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION DOES NOT FALL U/S 269D OF THE ACT DESPITE AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN CLUDING BY THE BENCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS CAST ON HIM. CONSEQUENTLY THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS INTO REALM OF BARE ASSERTION UNSUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT AND CORRO BORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. 7. RESULTANTLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH SEPT. 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 TH SEPT. 2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH